Is there any linkage to a presidential contender winning an election and the amount of money they raised?

Answer 1

No.
There is a link to raising enough money to be competitive. Generally, that weeds out candidates before the convention. Republicans have spent more than Dems almost every single election since WWII (only 3 exceptions I know of), but have won about half of them.

However, if a candidate can't raise "enough" money early on, people tend to look at it as a sign of campaign weakness, and these candidates are often forced to drop out. In a sense, money hurt them. However, it's more correct to say that their unpopularity hurt them: if they were more popular, they would have been able to raise more money.

Answer 2

The money in their own pockets matter as much as how much they could potentialy raise. The crap is burying much of the figures, but with a good shovel you'll find the big corporations, lobbyists and very old money are the controlling factor in elections. I don't want to jink things but so far the campaign advertising has been approved for all ages. Right now I attribute this to a woman running for president. If circumstances change I hope the R rated campaign advertisements can only be aired after 10:00pm, when our children are asleep. The money in their own pockets....

Answer 3

For the main section this is real that extra funds skill extra probability of triumphing an election. in spite of the shown fact that, please observe that Meg Whitman out spent Jerry Brown by utilizing a super margin yet have been given her as s exceeded to her. of direction it wasn't a Presidential race and California has continually traditionally been a Democratic state, in spite of the shown fact that it merely is going to teach that below particular situations extra funds would not continually be triumphant. With that being suggested, i'm hoping and assume that Obama would be re-elected in 2012, not because of the fact of having extra funds at his disposal yet because of the fact the Republicans have no doable candidate.

Answer 4

Maybe not the most, but you need a ton!!!
I heard that by the time the Primaries and the General Election is over, that the combined amount spent by the Candidates will top $1,000,000,000. That's the first BILLION DOLLAR election.......YIKES!!!

Answer 5

Seems to be a sad fact of life, more than one election has been won by money, not always successful, but it plays a large part.

Answer 6

No, Kerry and the Democrats spent more in 2004.

Answer 7

Unfortunately yes.
The big money raiser does not necessarily win, but if you can't raise big money, you WILL lose!

Answer 8

You look like Regis.